PDA

View Full Version : Alan's next war. Approaching a terminal near you.


hotnhigh
20th Feb 2017, 00:03
Lets have a crisis shall we? Or is that " we'll show them."
So it seems despite agreed EBA's, Alan is positioning the troops for another all out assault on the front line "team members"
The 787 introduction is the battle ground, with arguments being created to bring on the next manufactured crisis.
The engineers and pilots collectively in their sights for daring to press for eba agreed terms and conditions.
A new entity is the threat and rumour. Although Jetstar is keen to step up to the plate.
The only question is why?:ugh::ugh::ugh::ouch:

CaptCloudbuster
20th Feb 2017, 00:30
The only "assault" on the 787 conditions presently seems to be the issue regarding the tech crew rest area config? Is that what you're alluding to?

The word from the "front line troops" at least in SH is we hope the change back to old guard leadership in AIPA doesn't [email protected] things up for the majority.

Don't be so prescious AIPA and create a war over perceived lack of "consultation". Do we really expect the Company to pay for a non standard rest area when, if the extra Pilot wants to sit, a curtained off option in the cabin is already available?

Apologies in advance if this is not what you are starting this thread about.

SixDemonBag
20th Feb 2017, 00:37
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/vUqIjp-k_m1LoX5LcWmT5J0_NWX_d9YnY4lKX7CZiTof_3XTU3RW9o5y48ZwXWtsc9N 5lcGk7O_MUScV1Qzh1CN9oMJUlK7hx3deUtMGSwm6HuBx2akYgXssLl0SMr3 qDWgkicObg78h4u5x1xl3_HXoaW5QEhk=w500-h280-nc

blow.n.gasket
20th Feb 2017, 00:48
a curtained off option in the cabin is already available?
What ,the cabin crew seat in the galley you mean Capt?
Don't BA pilots get a Business class seat in the cabin for ULR ops?
Not everyone will want to sleep in the ceiling coffins on time off ,especially during daylight ops.
The seat in the crew rest area has limitations as well ,hence the push for a business class seat.
Even the business class seat if agreed to , so I'm led to believe , isn't contractualy compliant , yet the much maligned AIPA appear to be willing to negotiate, so I'm told.
Seems the company is very good at forcing and ignoring contractual obligations as it deems fit. The direction of their choice appears to revolve around how costs affect management bonus's !

Yet from what I hear the AIPA reps are anything but combative.
How often do you just "roll over " so as not to "rock the boat".
I say go ahead and employ outside Long Haul. Can't wait to see the resultant redundancy costs!
Didn't the last EA also contain a clause that stated that B787's in Qantas colours would be flown by Qantas mainline pilots?

Wasn't it old scrotum face who also said "you only get what you bargain for".
Have you seen what's on offer for crew rest?
For an ULR aircraft in conjunction with FRMS , I believe this issue is very important and well worth the elbow grease expended by these "old guard AIPA" ( wasn't it only the new President the only change to the AIPA Executive lineup?, hardly a wholesale sell out to the Old Guard) to get the best possible outcome for the crew who will be operating this equipment for many, many years to come.

CaptCloudbuster
20th Feb 2017, 00:56
Is this what AIPA is getting upset about (http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/10/inside-look-crew-rest-areas-different-airliners/) Blown?.....:rolleyes:

From the Company

the B787-9 comes with a standard crew rest facility, which includes the two bunks and one seat within the crew rest area. In addition, there is a second seat known as a high comfort seat with a footrest in a curtained off area adjacent to door L1. The seats are intended for partaking of a meal, reading, watching a movie or to be used as a precursor to sleep. Both seats are Taxi, Take-off and Landing rated.

blow.n.gasket
20th Feb 2017, 01:15
That's it, a glorified cabin crew jumpseat near the galley.
Not even remotely compliant with contractualy agreed to conditions.
Have a look at what other airlines are operating ULR ops with.

CurtainTwitcher
20th Feb 2017, 02:42
He [Alan] is gloating over the EBA deal...
Still, it’s a calculated gamble, one that Qantas’ global competitors will be watching. To generate sufficient returns on the hub investment and on its fixed costs, Joyce will want to add a second daily Perth to London flight – or flights to Paris or Frankfurt – with subsequent 787 deliveries. He’ll also be counting on getting the improved operating economics promised by Boeing and the 30 per cent productivity improvements negotiated with his pilots. He isn’t in doubt. “This thing is going to be amazing for us.”
AFR magazine (http://www.afr.com/brand/afr-magazine/qantas-puts-faith-in-nonstop-perth-to-london-route-20161127-gsyuez)

MEA332
20th Feb 2017, 06:40
The company is trying to set a new precedent with the 787 and this will be the ground work for any new aircraft fleet type to be introduced in the future.

Iron Bar
20th Feb 2017, 06:51
Chill - No cause for alarm at this stage. The right people are sitting on hands for the time being and watching to see what happens next with FWC. It's not as simple as it might appear. SCC training continues and allocations are allocating. Good faith negotiations continue.

wiggy
20th Feb 2017, 07:07
Don't BA pilots get a Business class seat in the cabin for ULR ops?


Just for clarification on most ULR ops they generally have to have business style seat(s) somewhere, so that was indeed a Business class seat in the cabin on the likes of the 744. However nowadays on some types (e.g. The 773) that requirement is met by the vaguely business style seats in the crew rest area.

In any event I know this is an increasingly important issue so good luck.

Willie Nelson
20th Feb 2017, 07:23
Hotnhigh said:

Although Jetstar is keen to step up to the plate.

News to me, just saw about twenty of my colleagues today at the Pub and nobody else mentioned it either, sounds like a wind up.

QuarterInchSocket
20th Feb 2017, 07:36
Hotnhigh said:



News to me, just saw about twenty of my colleagues today at the Pub and nobody else mentioned it either, sounds like a wind up.
If you are of the rank and file, I expect you'd be the last to find out.

ALAEA Fed Sec
20th Feb 2017, 08:43
http://i65.tinypic.com/8zhgdt.png

knobbycobby
20th Feb 2017, 10:38
CaptainCloudBuster,

Do you speak for all of SH?
Would you be offended if someone told you the 787 was a LH aeroplane?
Most front line LH pilots are happy that AIPA are attempting what is best for an ultra long range aircraft that will do 19 hour tours of duty.
Not panicking like a frightened child without a pair. You'll still get your shiny toy so please don't cry. Perhaps you could look at the company pictures of the procedures trainer to comfort your anxiety?

I would rather trust AIPA to obtain what was agreed upon in the Long Haul EA.
It's sad that Fair Work is now involved however pilots have been there before. You'd always be welcome to volunteer your time to have a better say if you felt discontent.

As Alan stated publicly the pilots have to work 30% harder to fly the 787. Best of luck to the engineers dealing with the Qantas 787 scare campaign, sorry EA.

Beer Baron
20th Feb 2017, 18:36
Do we really expect the Company to pay for a non standard rest area?

As you well know, Qantas built a business case for the 787 that the LH EA HAD to meet. The EA included the provision of 2 class 1 rest facilities. Why on earth should we accept anything less when we are upholding our end of the EA 100%?

QF said we'd get the shiny toy if we signed up to the new terms. We did our part and now they don't want to abide by what was written. I'm in short haul and I don't hear anyone saying we should roll over and let Qantas weasel out of a commitment they made and we paid for.

CaptCloudbuster
20th Feb 2017, 23:46
Upon reflection, my initial post was an immediate over reaction to the aggressive scare mongering tone set in post 1.

I've spent some time this morning looking through the LH EA and make the following observations with regards to Beer Baron and Knobby's assertions that the Company is not providing what has been agreed to.

I believe Iron Bar and MEA332 are right on the money.

I'm assuming QF excercised their right under Clause 42.1 to establish a conference to consider changes to rules and working conditions for new aircraft?

Studying the EA RM 20.3 shows that nothing has been agreed as yet regarding Crew rest provisions for TOD's expected for the B787?

Happy to be corrected Knobby / BB.

I think my observation that a return to FWC coincides with a change in AIPA Leadership is a pertinent one and hopefully not a return to the past.

dragon man
21st Feb 2017, 00:55
He [Alan] is gloating over the EBA deal...

AFR magazine (http://www.afr.com/brand/afr-magazine/qantas-puts-faith-in-nonstop-perth-to-london-route-20161127-gsyuez)

He can gloat all he likes however the 30% is the total pay saved IMO to the pilots on a sector, most of that comes from the SOs. However when you add up the total pilots cost on the 787,747 and 380 per sector then divide it by the number of seats on each aircraft there is no 30% saving. I've done the numbers it is about 1%.

Beer Baron
21st Feb 2017, 05:17
Studying the EA RM 20.3 shows that nothing has been agreed as yet regarding Crew rest provisions for TOD's expected for the B787?
The first route the 787 will fly MEL-LAX is less than 18 hours ToD (if I recall correctly). That is precisely covered by RM20.3. It spells out the need for 2 class 1 rests and what a class 1 rest is. The company don't want to provide it.

The HCAS (High Comfort Attendant Seat) being offered is a cabin crew jump seat with and additional footrest. The company left out the "Attendant" part of the name when they emailed us about it. I'm sure it was no accident.

Ngineer
21st Feb 2017, 10:30
You guys are seriously missing the point. Do you all honestly think money grows on trees?


We need to make cuts, and that means we all must make sacrifices. There are important costs that must be paid for all these important things.... like designing funny white hats, and changing the font on a brand, or painting letters different colours.


All these things are very important and cost money you know, more important than who flies or fixes these things. Ask any of the coffee sippers in the QVB building at Mascot. Thousands of them will tell you that.


You should all just grow up.

knobbycobby
21st Feb 2017, 10:57
DragonMan,

What Alan is alluding to is that 787 pilots will have to fly 30% more without the night credits on 4 pilot sectors. Which are the current routes for the 787 namely MEL-LAX, PER-LHR.
Also receiving no overtime on ultra long haul routes removes the pay premium for the company. So the higher hourly rate(with no overtime) is still cheaper for QF than a lower hourly rate that includes overtime.
It's only if the 787 flies to Asia or short sectors(2/3 pilot) that the balance returns to the pilots favour.
Alan knew the 787 was an ultra long haul aeroplane and hence he made those facts known to the ASX(After the EA) which the financial review reported. It's considerably more than a 1% saving.
As others have stated, considerable pay and work sacrifices were made in the 787 EA.
As I see it AIPA are just ensuring that the crew rest meets the requirements of the agreed EA.
Pilots flying a 19 hour TOD through the night are going to need it to be satisfactory!
Regardless If your SH, LH, or a pilot who's yet to join Qantas, you want it to be acceptable if/when you or others fly it or not.

Tuner 2
21st Feb 2017, 11:04
DragonMan,

What Alan is alluding to is that 787 pilots will have to fly 30% more without the night credits on 4 pilot sectors. Which are the current routes for the 787 namely MEL-LAX, PER-LHR.
Also receiving no overtime on ultra long haul routes removes the pay premium for the company. So the higher hourly rate(with no overtime) is still cheaper for QF than a lower hourly rate that includes overtime.
It's only if the 787 flies to Asia or short sectors(2/3 pilot) that the balance returns to the pilots favour.
Alan knew the 787 was an ultra long haul aeroplane and hence he made those facts known to the ASX(After the EA) which the financial review reported. It's considerably more than a 1% saving.
As others have stated, considerable pay and work sacrifices were made in the 787 EA.
As I see it AIPA are just ensuring that the crew rest meets the requirements of the agreed EA.
Pilots flying a 19 hour TOD through the night are going to need it to be satisfactory!
Regardless If your SH, LH, or a pilot who's yet to join Qantas, you want it to be acceptable if/when you or others fly it or not.

Slight sidetrack from the main topic, but just curious. Credit for a PER-LHR return would be about 35:00 for a 4 or maybe 5 day trip. At 787 planning divisor of 155, that's about 4.4 trips or about 18-22 days worked per 56 day roster. Does that sound right?

Keg
21st Feb 2017, 12:58
It'll be 5 days I suspect but your numbers sound about right. There will probably a few two day trips of PER-MEL-PER in there too (5:30 per day). Maybe the schedule will allow them to be done as a day trip- 7:30 credit or thereabouts.

dragon man
21st Feb 2017, 19:57
DragonMan,

What Alan is alluding to is that 787 pilots will have to fly 30% more without the night credits on 4 pilot sectors. Which are the current routes for the 787 namely MEL-LAX, PER-LHR.
Also receiving no overtime on ultra long haul routes removes the pay premium for the company. So the higher hourly rate(with no overtime) is still cheaper for QF than a lower hourly rate that includes overtime.
It's only if the 787 flies to Asia or short sectors(2/3 pilot) that the balance returns to the pilots favour.
Alan knew the 787 was an ultra long haul aeroplane and hence he made those facts known to the ASX(After the EA) which the financial review reported. It's considerably more than a 1% saving.
As others have stated, considerable pay and work sacrifices were made in the 787 EA.
As I see it AIPA are just ensuring that the crew rest meets the requirements of the agreed EA.
Pilots flying a 19 hour TOD through the night are going to need it to be satisfactory!
Regardless If your SH, LH, or a pilot who's yet to join Qantas, you want it to be acceptable if/when you or others fly it or not.

I hear you however the hourly rate for the 787 is higher than say the present rate for the 747 by about 10% so he is paying for those increased stick hours. IMO the bottom line is the cost of the pilots per seat per sector and that is basically unchanged. The other thing is that with no overtime people will be more inclined to go sick for the duration of a pattern with a medical certificate hence no pattern protection. Only time will tell how this pans out.

ClearanceClarence1
22nd Feb 2017, 22:04
I am with Alan on this one which is very uncool. When I do a ULR flight for 15 hours on the 777 I am sitting in the seat in the flight deck for hours. When it's break time I go to the bunk and lie down on my little bed. Why do you want to take another seat in the cabin that could be paying the bills? I must be missing the facts.

fearcampaign
23rd Feb 2017, 06:09
Not true.
A PER/LHR pattern is longer than a SYD/DFW
So as an example Using a DFW pattern that's more conservative than a PER/LHR.

Non 787 you would get 39.72 credit hours plus 15.13 hours overtime.
That's 54.9 credit hours paid per trip.
787 EA you only get the stick hours of 32.4. 787 you get no overtime.
Without night credits 787 you get 7.32 hours less (39.72 Credit hours with night credits vs 32.4 stick)
These figures would look worse on a PER/LHR pattern.

On this example It's 69% less paid hours per trip on the 787. The higher hourly rate is not enough to compensate for the loss of overtime and night credits.
Let's say for example the hourly rate was $100 on the 787. That would be $3240 per trip.
The hourly rate on existing types could be only $59 or nearly half and still earn the same. Eg 54.9 CREDIT hours x $59 per credit hour= $3240
So the higher hourly rate definitely does not compensate. If you compare A330 rates for Captains or even 767 vs 787 stick hour higher rate it's significantly less. I remember Wayne Kearns complaining that the hourly rate was far to high in Short Haul. What he knew but didn't admit was that SH pilots often did 12 hours duty for 4-5 hours pay so the hourly rate was irrelevant.

If the 787 were flying Asia trips with no overtime you claw a little back from the losses on the ULR routes. But for Qantas the 787 flies ultra long thin routes. The longest Qantas has ever flown.
Alan's a mathematician after all. Pilots have been fooled by the appearance of a bigger number that results in significantly less money in your pocket.
Nothing can be changed now and it's a fantastic achievement for Qantas. I think Alan Joyce is smarter than people give him credit for. The savings are massive and the productivity significantly improved without night credits.

Tuner 2
23rd Feb 2017, 06:20
Is this a reference to my question?

So on the 787 doing PER/LHR returns at a about 35 stick hours per pattern and 155 planning divisor, I wouldn't be working 18-23 days per 56 depending on whether they are 4 or 5 day trips? Obviously some of those days will be part-days depending on arrival and departure times.

Not asking about "what ifs" re night credits or O/T. Just trying to make an educated choice about days a work per BP.

Thanks in advance.

Beer Baron
23rd Feb 2017, 06:37
On this example It's 69% less paid hours per trip on the 787.
No it's not. Your own figures show only a 41% decrease.

V-Jet
23rd Feb 2017, 07:53
No it's not. Your own figures show only a 41% decrease.

People were pretty angry Elaine boasted about 30%. If I were him I would have been shouting it from the rooftops. Whichever way you cut it, it was an astounding achievement for the wee fella.

Troo believer
23rd Feb 2017, 08:55
Why are you people debating an EA that's been voted on and the vast majority have approved? Get over it. No one is forcing you to fly it.The 787 will not be flying between Mel and Per either according to the engineers I've spoken with. The aircraft will fly Mel- Lax-Bne-Per-Lhr and return the opposite way. Even though I'm in favour of a proper crew rest as per the award, look at what's just happened with penalty rates for the hospitality industry today. FWA, I bet will not be very sympathetic, unfortunately, to a revised crew rest as stipulated in the EA. The precedent has already been set by other operators using the standard crew rest. Not right but realistic.

Capt Fathom
23rd Feb 2017, 09:20
The precedent has already been set by other operators using the standard crew rest. Not right but realistic.
How many other operators are flying the equivalent of Perth - London?

Iron Bar
23rd Feb 2017, 10:10
I understand that as the crew rest is a fatigue (safety) issue, Fair Work may not hear it. Unless they can convince FWC it's an industrial and not a safety issue, Qantas may have some jurisdiction problems here. CASA?

AerialPerspective
23rd Feb 2017, 12:29
http://i65.tinypic.com/8zhgdt.png
Any reason why their logo features a Concorde which was never owned, operated or maintained by their members... Just wondering. Isn't this the guy that would blame the Kennedy Assassination on offshore maintenance given half the chance. I'm not an engineer but I am not averse to the plight of the engineers - but I think this bloke has cried safety far too many times and is now pretty much viewed as lacking credibility. Didn't he get himself into a bind in a Senate Inquiry when a Senator asked after his rant about 'third world countries' whether he considered the Federal Republic of Germany a 3rd world country??? As I said, not averse to the plight of the engineers... I've known many in my time so I hope it all works out.

Beer Baron
23rd Feb 2017, 15:40
The precedent has already been set by other operators using the standard crew rest.
But several other operators provide first or business class seats to the pilots in addition to the standard crew rest. BA and UA for example. And they are not flying sectors as long as QF will.

dragon man
23rd Feb 2017, 17:20
Is this a reference to my question?

So on the 787 doing PER/LHR returns at a about 35 stick hours per pattern and 155 planning divisor, I wouldn't be working 18-23 days per 56 depending on whether they are 4 or 5 day trips? Obviously some of those days will be part-days depending on arrival and departure times.

Not asking about "what ifs" re night credits or O/T. Just trying to make an educated choice about days a work per BP.

Thanks in advance.
Two points I would make . One the 155 planning divisor is the companies for planning the numbers of pilots they should have. The divisor can actually be up to 180 stick hours which is a huge increase over what we currently fly with night credits. Secondly, when comparing hourly rates remember that the 787 is over 100,000 kgs lighter than the 747 and carries about 135 less paxs therefore IMO the hourly rate achieved was very good even allowing for no overtime or night credits.

StudentInDebt
23rd Feb 2017, 20:26
But several other operators provide first or business class seats to the pilots in addition to the standard crew rest. BA and UA for example. And they are not flying sectors as long as QF will.As pointed out previously by another poster, BA don't provide a business seat in the cabin where the crew rest facility contains an "equivalent" seat, where this is not the case (747 and 777 without proper bunk area) they provide a business seat which can be moved to first if available at close-out.

Nothing wrong with arguing for one though, especially on a sector like PER-LHR!

angryrat
23rd Feb 2017, 20:27
But several other operators provide first or business class seats to the pilots in addition to the standard crew rest. BA and UA for example. And they are not flying sectors as long as QF will.
This. Many don't know how other LH/ULR operators provide crew rest. What we have now is the difference between what bean counters ask Boeing to build and the reality of ULR operations. The bean counters would have factored in fighting with their local authorities and weak pilots unions, all to save fuel on lighter weight crew rests. Some of the biggest customers of late are from the Middle East where they essentially make up their own rules and the pilots have no union to defend the position.

A big thumbs up to AIPA for fighting for my health, where some bean counter can't put it into a spreadsheet or doesn't give two hoots whether I die younger than I should.

goodonyamate
23rd Feb 2017, 20:32
From a rest/risk perspective, let's not forget the other airlines also have 2 capts and 2 fo's who are current....Qantas will have only 2 current/qualified pilots who can land, and two SO's who while no doubt could get the job done if need be, will have spent all their time in the seat above FL200. With TOD's this long, surely adequate rest is something that must be considered. Rest doesn't necessarily mean sleeping either.

Capt Quentin McHale
23rd Feb 2017, 21:26
AerialPerspective,


"Any reason why their logo features a Concorde which was never owned, operated or maintained by their members... Just wondering"


3 points....


1- You say that you're not an engineer and I suspect you are not a pilot either. Perhaps company troll ???


2- Not a Concorde on the logo, the nose gives it away.


3- I suspect a few of the old Qantas Lames from days gone by who were based in Singapore WITH Concorde licences may have something to say about your statement.


So what exactly is your point?


McHale. http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Tuner 2
23rd Feb 2017, 23:04
Thanks dragonman.

Even occassioal180 hour divisors would equate to 5 PER/LHR trips and 25 days worked out of 56. Having always found 4 pilot ops much, much easier than 2 pilot BOC flights from Asia, it sounds quite appealing to me.

C441
24th Feb 2017, 00:14
......and CASA's position on the crew rest seats is......?

C441
24th Feb 2017, 00:21
One, the 155 planning divisor is the companies (company's) for planning the numbers of pilots they should have.

It's not what they should have, it's the minimum number of pilots they need. When the divisor goes up, that same number of pilots just work harder. In the early days or in the event of a downturn when the pilots are actually doing less than 155, matching the number of pilots to that divisor determines the maximum number they need to pay, even if they aren't achieving those hours.

To put it another way. How many pilots do we need to do a 155 hour divisor with the planned flying? If the flying increases the pilots just work harder.

Tuner 2
24th Feb 2017, 00:21
Suspect CASA only cares about the rest meeting the CAO requirements. If the argument is about an industrial issue that is over and above the CAO requirement then why would CASA care? CASA enforces the regs not the EBA. I don't know if the 787 rest is CAO compliant though? Assuming that it is.

C441
24th Feb 2017, 02:43
...and that is my point. Do CASA believe the crew rest is adequate for a 19+ hour tour-of-duty? At the moment that planned ToD would not be allowable so the acceptability of the crew rest must be part of CASA approving the revised CAO's allowing extended tours-of-duty.

Tuner 2
24th Feb 2017, 02:52
Forgive me for being slow but why is the planned TOD not allowable? Not allowed by who? I thought under EX60/14 CASA allowed us to go to 20?
The 787 has been on the order books for years and everyone has known it can fly that far, yet CASA have not introduced any revised rules about new rest standards to my knowledge.

framer
24th Feb 2017, 02:53
for a 19+ hour tour-of-duty?
I feel crook just reading about a 19 hour duty. Glad it won't be me.

CurtainTwitcher
24th Feb 2017, 05:00
Forgive me for being slow but why is the planned TOD not allowable? Not allowed by who? I thought under EX60/14 CASA allowed us to go to 20?
EX60/14 is specific to the 747-4 / 330 / 380 /767. When CASA issued the instrument in 2014, it would have been well aware of the inherent commercial range limitations of the airborne time of these specific types as well as established & longstanding operator practice. The 20 hours TOD allows for delays & diversions, rather than an every day normal operating practice.

The 787 transcends these previous types commercial limitations. In addition, will have to at least consider recent ICAO FRMS guidelines published in 2012 that seem to at least have some evidence based component, rather than simply pencilling in a larger number as new type range increased.

How many current pre-planned patterns on existing types have a 19 hour TOD? Because that is likely to be the norm form many crew on the 787, will CASA be justified in simply adding 787 to the next instrument?

maggot
24th Feb 2017, 05:03
From a rest/risk perspective, let's not forget the other airlines also have 2 capts and 2 fo's who are current....Qantas will have only 2 current/qualified pilots who can land, and two SO's who while no doubt could get the job done if need be, will have spent all their time in the seat above FL200. With TOD's this long, surely adequate rest is something that must be considered. Rest doesn't necessarily mean sleeping either.

So.... who'll get the choice of the 1 seat...

Tuner 2
24th Feb 2017, 05:15
Thanks for that info Curtian. Appreciated.
So has casa approved per lhr ops or have QF just announced without it?

CurtainTwitcher
24th Feb 2017, 05:48
So has casa approved per lhr ops or have QF just announced without it?

Thus far there is nothing on the CASA website as having been approved - hand crafted Google Search Link for "tour of duty" 787 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22tour+of+duty%22+787+site%3Acasa.gov.au&oq=%22tour+of+duty%22+787+site%3Acasa.gov.au&aqs) specific to the CASA website

Whereas, the search link substituting 747 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22tour+of+duty%22+747+site%3Acasa.gov.au&oq=%22tour+of+duty%22+747+site%3Acasa.gov.au&aqs) finds the EX60/14 instrument successfully. Draw tour your own conclusions.

CurtainTwitcher
25th Feb 2017, 03:17
From todays West Australian Battle on over airport alternative (https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/battle-on-over-airport-alternative-ng-b88396765z)

“For us, Cunderdin makes far more sense because it’s so close to Perth and gives us the opportunity of returning to Perth before our crew are over their duty time hours and that is critical.”

It would seem that the crew duty time + diversion (67nm) & subsequent required extension (no obvious pressure to extend) is right on the margin of the anticipated CASA Flight & Duty time exception.


h/t to Capt Bloogs, on the other thread post #39 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/590519-cunderdin-ticks-all-ypph-alternate-boxes-2.html#post9687283) Cunderdin Ticks All YPPH alternate boxes

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=YPPH-YCUN%0d%0aYPPH-YBLN%0d%0aYPPH-YGEL%0d%0aYPPH-YPKG&R=69nm%40YCUN%0d%0a109NM%40YBLN%0d%0a199NM%40YGEL%0d%0a291NM %40YPKG%0d%0a&MS=wls&MR=120&MX=720x360&PM=%2a
Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YPPH-YCUN%0D%0AYPPH-YBLN%0D%0AYPPH-YGEL%0D%0AYPPH-YPKG&R=69nm%40YCUN%0D%0A109NM%40YBLN%0D%0A199NM%40YGEL%0D%0A291NM %40YPKG%0D%0A&PM_q=*&PM=*&MS=wls&MP=&MC=&PC=&PW=&PT=&RC=&RW=&RS=&DU=nm&DM=&SG=&SU=mph&EV=&EU=kts)